SHOULD Canada break up?

[Smallc]

nevermind, it would be like trying to put a square peg through a round hole.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

fakkkkkkkkkkkkk, are you for real?? Under what power would any region leave Canada? Aside from Quebec you people have crap entitlement to the region you live in. Canada did not fight or win a grand war to win independence from the UK. Any move to break away from Canada would require some outside support. Who would support alberta if it tried to separate? The US?? Doubtful. Who else?? Nobody!!!

Check the BNA and the 1982 Constitution, the Queen is the sovereign of Canada and the land of Canada belongs to her. Can't accept that reality, not sure what else there is to say to you. Canada is a nothing burger on the world stage, it has no population, no inovation, and mostly populated by dim witted dullards.

I see. If someone disagrees with you they must be a dim witted dullard. Didn't I run in to you on "rubble.ca"?

I guess you never noticed that the big powerful burger of Chechoslovakia broke up a few years ago. Peacefully, I might add. I'm surprised you never noticed, obviously being of bright wit.

First off, if you took the trouble to read you would have seen that I'm not an Albertan. I live in Ontario. Second, as has been pointed out the Liberals some years ago passed the Clarity Act, defining the mechanism for separation. Third, if a region truly wants out of confederation, do you really think that waving a piece of paper in front of them will stop them?

I'm struck by how many here have misunderstood my point. Nowhere did I say that I WANTED Canada to break up! In my opening post I pointed out the inability of the two main political camps to accept a government of the other. I would have thought the very proposal let alone the attempt to take power by means of a coup instead of an election would have made that obvious.

What sparked me to open this thread was Donail's point that we are more divided than perhaps ever before in our history. People have always faced the disappointment of not having their chosen party win government but it seems today that some folks are willing to bend the rules in any nitpicking fashion that will work to gain power, up to and including weaseling Canadians out of the chance to even vote on it!

I'm saying that if that's how far we've truly gone then perhaps we've become ungovernable. The most that can be achieved is for one party to take power and have large numbers of people and perhaps entire regions or provinces absolutely miserable!

This is not the way to foster unity and patriotism. Certainly, you can't combat such feelings by scolding folks and telling them to just shut up and lump it! As I said before, the only sure way to get people to WANT to belong to a group is to give them real, positive reasons. Many posters here are always trumpeting about how Harper never won a majority of the popular vote. Well, neither did any other party. Perhaps we've grown so different that it's just not possible anymore.

Or maybe under decades of brokerage politics we've been trained to think of ourselves first and our country second. Whatever, it doesn't change anything.

As a post script, it might be more productive if some posters would refrain from calling me names in order to make themselves come across as some kind of super patriot rather than come up with some positive reasons for Canadians to accept not having their personal party pick in power. Better yet, some evidence that they do!

You don't have to convince me. You have to convince the rising number of separatists in various provinces. Look what happened to Harper's chances in Quebec and the polling numbers of the BQ last election. Consider the feeling in Alberta if this coup succeeds.

Then tell me again how waving some Law will make it all go away.

[jdobbin]

Oh and just to stir the shit...marriage was designed as one man and one woman. Worked prety damn good for a hell of a lot longer than this Westminster crap. But it was forced to be changed...because despite it was working as designed...it was deemed to not be right.

Same right wing stuff we always see. Someone else's marriage doesn't affect you one whit. It is capricious and angry social engineering based on hatred much in the same way that blacks were one time not allowed to be married because they were black and how blacks and whites were forbidden from marrying in a large swath of North America until 1967.

Bet that was working well for some too.

Edited November 30, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

So what choices do we have? A situation where 2/3 of the populace is perpetually in high anxiety or even despair? Or all go our separate ways?

Your assuming that Canada is the only one divisible.

Why can't Alberta be divisible as well? Quebec?

I like how some raise the specter of separation each time their party loses. Talk about hyperpartisan.

[Wilber]

See, but those are all opinions. Reality is, our system works as intended and its done quite well for this country.

They are nothing of the sort, Our Senate is a house based on political privilege, not democratic principles and because of that, does far more harm to the unity of this country than good, whatever its intentions may be. If our system works so well, why are so many dissatisfied with it? Why is separation always near the forefront of the Canadian consciousness?

[Smallc]

They are nothing of the sort, Our Senate is a house based on political privilege, not democratic principles and because of that, does far more harm to the unity of this country than good, whatever its intentions may be. If our system works so well, why are so many dissatisfied with it? Why is separation always near the forefront of the Canadian consciousness?

Well, if the US system works so well, why are so many dissatisfied with it? I'll tell you a secret. People in general, and conservatives in particular, are always dissatisfied with the government. I am the exception to the rule. Much of the time, its because they don't bother to understand it or they get blinded by ideology. Our system works well. Just looking around where you live and comparing it to Thailand should tell you that.

That said, I wouldn't be completely opposed to Senate reform....if it weren't such a complex thing.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Well, if the US system works so well, why are so many dissatisfied with it? I'll tell you a secret. People in general, and conservatives in particular, are always dissatisfied with the government. I am the exception to the rule. Much of the time, its because they don't bother to understand it or they get blinded by ideology. Our system works well. Just looking around where you live and comparing it to Thailand should tell you that.

That said, I wouldn't be completely opposed to Senate reform....if it weren't such a complex thing.

Americans may be dissatisfied with their government, that happens in every country but tell me how they are dissatisfied with their form of government. They have nowhere near the regional bickering we do and separation isn't even thought of except by a few fringe wingnuts.

Canada's Senate gives independent status to two provinces Ontario and Quebec while lumping the rest into regions according to some Central Canada notion of what a region is. BC, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are as unique in their own way as Ontario or Quebec but are lumped together as a region because Central Canada says so. The same can be said for the Maritime Provinces. On top of that, Newfoundland Labrador and the individual Territories are treated as something else entirely. It is a mongrel system that instead of promoting equality between provinces as the US system does, promotes friction between regions. It's time has past, if it ever had one. Dump it or reform it.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Americans may be dissatisfied with their government, that happens in every country but tell me how they are dissatisfied with their form of government. They have nowhere near the regional bickering we do and separation isn't even thought of except by a few fringe wingnuts.

First, there are a great many Canadians happy with their form of government. so with that...

The Westminster system works, it doesn't really matter if you like it or not. That said, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of senate reform, but....its jsut...how many senators do you give each province? Di you give each territory the same number as the provinces? A different number? Is Quebec willing to give up having 24? If not do you give 24 to say PEI? How do you elect them> When do you elect them? How should they be elected? Whats next, should we vote for the Governor General? Should we politicize everything? Judges, police chiefs, Crown atourneys, etc, etc, etc.

We have a very regional country. It has always been that way. The unity problem that we may or may not have (I don't buy it) has nothing to do with our form of government (well, it may actually have something to do with the strength of provinces). On top of that, our form of government is what makes this country what it is. I'm not in a hurry to change it just because some don't like it. Senate reform may be worth consideration, but since no one can agree on what they want.....

Also, stop comparing us to the US. We're a different country with a different system and a different history. We are what we are, they are what they are. Its kind of like comparing watermelons and camels (well, maybe not that different).

Edited November 30, 2008 by Smallc

[Oleg Bach]

I've heard from a great many Canadians today that are quite happy with our form of government. Its used in many countries the world over. It works, whether or not you like it.

Senate reform is too complex an issue to get into right now. Its completely unnecessary. Modeling it in the US style would also be completely useless as our systems are completely different.

The Westminster system works, it doesn't really matter if you like it or not.

I suppose being Crown Land and having the Queen be the matriarch of the private estate called Canada is not so bad..and the defacto government in the form of Parliment is quite cute and entertaining and useless.

[Wilber]

The Westminster system works, it doesn't really matter if you like it or not.

Actually it does bloody well matter you condescending backside, it's my government.

Also, stop comparing us to the US. We're a different country with a different system and a different history. We are what we are, they are what they are. Its kind of like comparing watermelons and camels (well, maybe not that different).

OK then, how about the Australian Senate, elected and accountable under a form of PR. How about New Zealand? They don't have one.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Actually it does bloody well matter you condescending backside, it's my government.

No, its not "your" government.

OK then, how about the Australian Senate, elected and accountable under a form of PR.

Ask Australians how they feel about that. The PM was laughed at in their House of Representatives when he talked about how they did things so well.

[Wilber]

No, its not "your" government.

Then who's is it? Yours? The Tooth Fairies?

Ask Australians how they feel about that. The PM was laughed at in their House of Representatives when he talked about how they did things so well.

You ask them, but boy are we doing so much better these days. Nobody ever laughs at each other in our perfect parliament do they?

Edited November 30, 2008 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Then who's is it? Yours? The Tooth Fairies?

It belongs to all of us. All 33 million.

You ask them, but boy are we doing so much better these days. Nobody ever laughs at each other in our perfect parliament do they?

That wasn't what I was commenting on. i was saying they have done what you want with the senate and they still don't agree. i already know that it would create more trouble than its worth because different provinces have different views on the matter.

[Wilber]

It belongs to all of us. All 33 million.

Right, so don't tell me it isn't my government and my opinion doesn't matter.

That wasn't what I was commenting on. i was saying they have done what you want with the senate and they still don't agree. i already know that it would create more trouble than its worth because different provinces have different views on the matter.

Then let's do like New Zealand. Not have one.

Democracy is about disagreement and representative government, not packing a house with political appointees in a system where the person doing the appointing already has near dictatorial powers once elected.

[Smallc]

Democracy is about disagreement and representative government, not packing a house with political appointees in a system where the person doing the appointing already has near dictatorial powers once elected.

The PM doesn't have the power to appoint. IMO, he never should have been given the power to advise. The GG should make appointments without any input from the PM.

[Vancouverite]

PMFJI. I'm a Vancouverite, as my name suggests, and I think Canada won't be breaking up any time soon. That said, if there's a series of unstable minorities in the Federal government, that could change. If one region or province decides it's had enough and wants to go, then the rest could decide the same thing. If Canada breaks up, much of it would join the United States - sorry, but that's the reality we face. The Atlantic provinces cannot survive on their own; Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchwan are land locked - and, if these provinces began flying the stars and stripes, so will BC and, eventually, Ontario.

[Smallc]

Manitoba land locked

ummmmm

[Wilber]

The PM doesn't have the power to appoint. IMO, he never should have been given the power to advise. The GG should make appointments without any input from the PM.

What world do you live in. the GG is appointed by the Queen according to the recommendation of the PM. The GG then appoints who the PM tells her to appoint.

Wikipedia

Thirty-eight current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (Liberal, 1993-2003)

Twenty-one current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative, 1984-1993)

Seventeen current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal, 2003-2006)

Nine current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Liberal, 1968-1979, 1980-1984)

One current senator have been appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative, 2006-)

One current senator was appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative, 1979-1980)

One current senator was appointed on the advice of Prime Minister John Turner (Liberal, 1984)

[Smallc]

What world do you live in. the GG is appointed by the Queen according to the recommendation of the PM. The GG then appoints who the PM tells her to appoint.

The Governor General holds the power to appoint senators, although, in modern practice, he or she makes appointments only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

We should go back to the way it was before. We should make the senate less political.

[Vancouverite]

Oops - my mistake. Manitoba is not land locked. Hey, I'm just a Western Canadian yokel, give me a break. By the way, is Africa a nation?

[Wilber]

The Governor General holds the power to appoint senators, although, in modern practice, he or she makes appointments only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

We should go back to the way it was before. We should make the senate less political.

So you think that the Queen should appoint a GG without advice from Canadians and the GG should appoint Senators the same way? Yearning for the 1840's are you?

[Smallc]

So you think that the Queen should appoint a GG without advice from Canadians and the GG should appoint Senators the same way? Yearning for the 1840's are you?

I don't really see any other way to do the GG than current, but its a non political office anyway.

[Smallc]

Oops - my mistake. Manitoba is not land locked. Hey, I'm just a Western Canadian yokel, give me a break. By the way, is Africa a nation?

Even the best yokels make mistakes.....

[Frank]

The GG has never been taken seriously as a political power by anyone on the inside, it is and has always been a media friendly deflection for the PM's office. No matter how our senators are appointed, they really serve no useful purpose except to support their patrons agendas. Our link to the Britsh crown has been nothing more than symbolic for a very long time and maybe its time to do away with much of our symbolism in favor of effective actual powers in the house. Maybe I'm a little jaded after 39yrs of watching our system fail us time and time again, but I still believe effective, responsible government is possible. I just don't see it happening as long as we keep electing politicians who spend more time avoiding work and spewing the party line rather than supporting their communities,provinces and country. Back channel deals and patronage are the norm because we allow our politicians to get away with it.

The whole system is a JOKE, and I don't like the punch line.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Frank

[Smallc]

The GG has never been taken seriously as a political power

That's not what the office is about. She is a non partisan representation of the crown. It really is surprising to me how cynical people are given how good we have things.